October 11, 2010

It’s time for Republican candidates to address Hispanic voters directly over illegal immigration.

As a general rule, human beings respond more constructively to being challenged than to being pandered to. Hence, GOP candidates should forthrightly ask for the support of Hispanic voters in opposing illegal immigration.

“My Democrat opponent expects you to vote for him because he assumes that on the issue of illegal immigration, you vote as Mexicans, as Salvadorans, as Colombians, or so forth. In contrast, I expect you to vote as patriotic American citizens because more illegal immigration is bad for American citizens. As President Kennedy said: ‘And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.’”

Would this work? Would appealing to Hispanic voters as patriotic Americans rather than as entitled ethnics convert some to voting Republican?

Maybe—maybe not.

But how could it be worse than the Rove rout?

More importantly, a straightforward appeal to Hispanic patriotism would subvert the MSM’s dominant trope that being against illegal immigration is somehow shameful.

39 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Would appealing to Hispanic voters as patriotic Americans rather than as entitled ethnics convert some to voting Republican... how could it be worse than the Rove rout?

I'd be all for trying this approach myself, but you really need to prepare yourself for the possiblity that you wouldn't do any better than Rove did: Maybe 35% to 40% of the "Hispanic" population would respond to such an appeal, but the other 60% to 65% would continue to vote for the goodies.

In all honesty, the kinds of peoples who have the intelligence and industriousness and sobriety and character and integrity to vote consistently for limited government and the rule of law - those kinds of peoples are so very rare in the annals of human history that they really amount to little more than footnote to the greater scheme of things.

"How Fair is Britain, shows that the proportion of people of African-Caribbean and African descent incarcerated here is almost seven times greater to their share of the population. In the United States, the proportion of black prisoners to population is about four times greater."

From Guardian report:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/11/black-prison-population-increase-england

Sounds O/T I know, but possibly not. Your take would be interesting. Mine is that there is surely more competition from 'white' criminals in the US, if by 'white' we mean Hispanic? No?

I think this the perfect tactic for Republicans. Let's not forget that Mexicans, despite much reliance on government, also have a deeply ingrained macho streak which, I believe, can be elicited by the kind of appeals to patriotism and self-reliance of which Sailer writes. I've met more than one Chicano and Puerto Rican who liked Ronald Reagan because he was "tough,"i.e, manly -- and no mention of the Simpson-Mizzoli Amnesty signed by Reagan.

Just started reading "America's Half-Blooded Prince." It's like a wonderful extended Monday morning, because I always come to the end of the VDARE essays wishing for more.

What the Dems are really afraid of is not that Latinos will stop buying the idiotic mass immigration propaganda (they can't really vote anyway), but that brainwashed whites might start to question it. That's why they have to double down on on this message.

Well, the GOP is never going to win the vote of Hispanics who simply want more government handouts, so there's no sense trying to appease that crowd. Trying to sell the pro-enforcement position to the other Hispanics makes sense, especially if the sales pitch mentions what's in it for them - like higher wages.

The Republican candidate for the Democratic Party held seat in my district - a conservative leaning one - has adamantly refused to make illegal immigration a campaign issue, which I can only assume means he's pro-open borders. In a year when Democrats will fall in just about every GOP-leaning seat in the country, our Democrat is going to win. If he does win it, along with Meg Whitman's defeat, will be yet more proof that anti-illegal immigration is a winning issue, and that Republicans who refuse to take the proper position can only stand to lose.

Steve, I think this is a great idea and the Republicans might as well try it, since the Rove-Bush-McCain approach has not worked. Approach Hispanics as if they are people who want what's best for their adopted country, and who knows, maybe they'll be pleased not to be pandered to on a crass racial basis for a change. The Republicans should point out that Democrats assume that Hispanics have no respect for out borders, i.e., that they're not loyal Americans, and just want to use them for their own party's advantage. With a little backbone we could call them on it.

Which reminds me, whenever I hear unemployment discussed, and the fact that we're not creating even enough jobs to keep up with population growth, I wonder why no one mentions that population growth = immigration. Let's have a moratorium on immigration until we get unemployment down to an acceptable level. Is that an impossible political position to sell?

The question is whether the majority of American Latinos realize that they came to this nation for the Anglo culture and that mass immigration threatens to change that culture. If they realize this and don't want the US to become Mexico Norte, then they will buy this argument. If not, then we are all screwed.

"In the gubernatorial race in New Mexico, the most Hispanicized state in the union, Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish has promised to deny driver's licenses to illegals. Her Republican opponent, Susana Martinez, goes her one better. She will take away driver's licenses from illegal aliens who now have them. Martinez is running ahead and likely to be the first elected Latina governor in U.S. history."

New Mexico is "Hispanic", surely, but it is not monolithically so. It was formed of people who saw themselves as "Spaniards", not Indios or Mestizos or Mexicans. Thirty years ago I was warned not to call the NM locals "Mexicans" or "Mexican Americans" or ask when they immigrated to America since it was virtually insured to get me a b*tt whipping in towns like Mora, NM. The locals were Spanish, proud of it, and did not want to be confused with lesser races like Mexicans.

Anonymous said: "The question is whether the majority of American Latinos realize that they came to this nation for the Anglo culture and that mass immigration threatens to change that culture."Yes, and Steve should know that. The idea of swamping Anglo culture with a force of numbers sufficient to eradicate it is actually an attractive idea to many with the mestizo Mexican mentality. They carry, at the DNA level I believe, a chip-on-shoulder attitude toward American culture and an inherited tendency toward grandiose fantasies of "reconquista." Of seizing the pueblos of the despised Anglo and restoring Mexico's lost manhood. Trying to appeal to them on the basis that "more illegal immigration is bad for American citizens" would probably only have the effect of drawing millions more, intoxicated by the apparent nearness of the realization of that cherished dream.

Anonymous said: "The question is whether the majority of American Latinos realize that they came to this nation for the Anglo culture and that mass immigration threatens to change that culture."Yes, and Steve should know that. The idea of swamping Anglo culture with a force of numbers sufficient to eradicate it is actually an attractive idea to many with the mestizo Mexican mentality. They carry, at the DNA level I believe, a chip-on-shoulder attitude toward American culture and an inherited tendency toward grandiose fantasies of "reconquista." Of seizing the pueblos of the despised Anglo and restoring Mexico's lost manhood. Trying to appeal to them on the basis that "more illegal immigration is bad for American citizens" would probably only have the effect of drawing millions more, intoxicated by the apparent nearness of the realization of that cherished dream.

I'd be all for trying this approach myself, but you really need to prepare yourself for the possiblity that you wouldn't do any better than Rove did: Maybe 35% to 40% of the "Hispanic" population would respond to such an appeal, but the other 60% to 65% would continue to vote for the goodies.

True, but you don't alienate the majority of the GOP base using this path, so it's still a winner. Combine this with Sailer's citizenism, and you have a broadly appealing American message.

The underlying assumption here seems to be that the GOP leadership would be willing to oppose illegal immigration, if only they believed that doing do would not alienate Hispanic voters.

But from my observations these last several years, that is not how their minds work. The GOP leadership wants illegal immigration, and persuading Hispanics to want it too is part of their strategy.

Life would be so much simpler if only the Republican policy makers really were motivated purely by a desire for electoral success. That's the way the system is supposed to work, after all. But it doesn't.

Maybe if Buchanan keeps reading Sailer's blog he won't write drivel like "With the exception of an intense concern over the crisis in public education affecting their children, Latinos share the concerns of other Americans."

Pat, the crisis in public education is in large part caused by their children.

Hispanics overwhelmingly identify with their home countries and want to maintain over the border ties of culture, kinship, etc. The British colonists came to feel independent and were willing to break with the old country. Other colonists, the French and Spanish, still saw themselves as such and didn't see themselves as some new breed. Different groups who came here viewed themselves in varying ways. You can't generalize the British trajectory to everyone else. Hispanics see themselves as taking over, bit by bit. They've become regionalized, the American types vs the old school southerners, etc., but they're Hispanics first. Whites are delusional if they think Hispanics will become Brits, Germans, etc. It's a long term takeover via demographics, that's their take on it, and that's the coming reality. This is what happens when a country lets it's guard down; it can no longer preserve itself.

The question is whether the majority of American Latinos realize that they came to this nation for the Anglo culture and that mass immigration threatens to change that culture. If they realize this and don't want the US to become Mexico Norte, then they will buy this argument. If not, then we are all screwed.

If Lynn & Vanhanen are correct in guesstimating that Guatemala has an average IQ of 79, then abstract behavior like introspection are gonna be completely beyond the innate intellectual capability of the average Nahuatl/Yucatec/Mixtec/Zapotec-speaking illegal alien in this country.

"How Fair is Britain, shows that the proportion of people of African-Caribbean and African descent incarcerated here is almost seven times greater to their share of the population. In the United States, the proportion of black prisoners to population is about four times greater."

Yes, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans (and others) counted as Whites can skew the stats, but the overriding explanation is here:

I think we could all agree that the very best way to reduce the disparity would be by modifying the criminality distributions so that blacks and whites would commit crime at the same rate. But criminality distributions have stubbornly resisted change, leaving us only the incarceration thresholds to play with. To lower the disparity ratio in your state, simply lower the incarceration threshold imprisoning more bad guys of all stripes. That is the price you will have to pay to reduce the disparity ratio.

The incarceration threshold in the US -- and especially in the states with the largest black populations -- is lower than that in England.

Someone please explain this result in the Colorado governor's race, where Tancredo is American Constitution Party candidate:Tancredo, who is best-known for his staunch position against illegal immigration, also leads Hickenlooper among Hispanic voters, 42 percent to 40 percent. (Denver Post====

Are Colorado Hispanics just eccentric? Too many from old Spanish colonist stock?

Ha, ha! Well, this sort of approach might work in principle. After all, for decades America's single most prominent national opponent of immigration was...Cesar Chavez!

He was always denouncing the government for quietly tolerating illegal immigration, and even occasionally organized vigilante patrols along the Southern border to get media coverage. I used to tell people that the Minutemen should have instead named themselves the "Cesar Chavez Brigade", since they were just following his exact model.

The tricky thing is now trying this sort of political outreach/alliance after having previously spent a decade or two endlessly denouncing Hispanics in racial terms, and on every possible grounds imaginable, many of which are factually incorrect.

My guess would be that over years Steve has published about 2000 different columns critical of Hispanics, and maybe about 2 which were (mildly) favorable. So maybe he should recruit someone else to spearhead this new "Sailer Strategy"...

"Someone please explain this result in the Colorado governor's race, where Tancredo is American Constitution Party candidate:Tancredo, who is best-known for his staunch position against illegal immigration, also leads Hickenlooper among Hispanic voters, 42 percent to 40 percent."

The explanation could be a faulty poll - though in certain respects I wouldn't mind if it were correct. Tancredo leads among Hispanics. Hickenlooper is leading in arch-conservative Colorado Springs. Tancredo trails among all age groups but those 18-34. Sounds surreal.

All the other demographic groups seem to poll as expected, though, so there might be hope yet for Tancredo. He'll certainly beef up his numbers in El Paso County (Colorado Springs), and pragmatic Colorado Republicans will probably start ditching the official GOP candidate for him, since he's outpolling Maes 2-1.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said that while it is nice that Secretary Napolitano believes removing people in the country illegally is an important function for the Department of Homeland Security, "policy directives from the highest levels of DHS clearly demonstrate that the administration is refusing to enforce laws against noncriminal aliens."

That bad cop/good cop approach is designed to pacify those on the political right while the administration and some Democrats in Congress simultaneously lay the groundwork for legalizing those who broke our laws to get here and remain in the country illegally.

Sensible analysis, as far as it goes.

Big business, which mostly contributes to Republican political campaigns, wants cheap labor and so favors illegal immigrants. Democrats want the illegal immigrants because they see them as potential Democratic voters.

Bovine scatology. It isn't about money, at least not in the long term, because when every city in America looks like Tijuna and Nogales there isn't going to be much business other than drugs, prostitution, and protection rackets. It isn't about votes either. Political pundits, including Cal Thomas, are all well aware that latinos are relatively apathetic about voting even when they have the legal right to do so.

Clearly the goal is swamping Whites demographically. Or, to put it more charitably than is deserved, nobody is permitted to do anything that will prevent such an outcome. Cf. Arizona. If this were being done to a non-White majority in some other country it would be called genocide.

Steve Sailer's strategy might work to a limited extent--allowing the Republicans to not lose the Hispanic vote by any greater margin than they already do--but a better strategy would be to say to working class voters of whatever color or ethnicity, "You should vote for me, because I am going to raise your wages and make it easier for you to find a job." Considering the history of the Republican Party and who runs it now, this seems like a pretty far-fetched idea. But someone has to do it, or the two-party system will break apart. The working class has no one to represent their interests. They have been sold out. It doesn't matter to them that the Republicans did it out of greed and the Democrats did it out of political correctness. The fact is that they have been sold. If the Tea Party runs a third-party candidate for president in 2012, it will throw the election to Obama and throw the Jewish controlled media into hysteria, but I think it has to be done. At least one of our political parties has to be aligned with the economic interests of those who vote for it.

Steve, you are completely right. They should bash the media and Democrats for conflating all Hispanics with illegal aliens, and appeal to the Hispanic Americans as patriotic Americans (some hispanics are in fact patriotic). You won't get all or most of the Hispanics, but you'll at least shut up the media and put them in their place.

"Steve, I think this is a great idea and the Republicans might as well try it, since the Rove-Bush-McCain approach has not worked."

The people running the GOP haven't admitted this yet. They claim that Bush made great progress with the Hispanic vote but that it's all been undone by those nasty racists who objected to their attempt to slide amnesty through without a debate.

"Steve, I think this is a great idea and the Republicans might as well try it, since the Rove-Bush-McCain approach has not worked."

The people running the GOP haven't admitted this yet. They claim that Bush made great progress with the Hispanic vote but that it's all been undone by those nasty racists who objected to their attempt to slide amnesty through without a debate.

From the POV of practicality, this is one of the better memes on this blog. Rather than emphasizing the "your inherent nature is ABC, your acceptable role is limited to DEF, you'll probably never be XYZ" tack that HBD sometimes takes, you’ll win far more with the responsibility/citizenship approach (not a majority of the group, but it helps to peel away the left's coalition without alienating your core)*.

It is also fundamentally more dignified than some of the patronizing "be my human pet" vibe that the left emits.

*And that applies not just to Hispanics, but also to other groups, including women (i.e. does alienating 50% of the population with Roissy fanboyism really benefit you?).

>the kinds of peoples who have the intelligence and industriousness and sobriety and character and integrity to vote consistently for limited government and the rule of law - those kinds of peoples are so very rare in the annals of human history that they really amount to little more than footnote to the greater scheme of things.<

Which is why, especially in a multiethnic society, democracy's proper applications should be severly delimited, e.g., deciding who should be dogcatcher and that's all.

>The GOP leadership *wants* illegal immigration, and persuading Hispanics to want it too is part of their strategy.<

Correct. The GOP is not on our side. They absorb kumba-yah hard-left "diversity" with their mother's milk - in church, in school, in official pronouncements. The top GOP officials genuinely have no love for the white race and agree that it is going away, and that this is a good thing. Folks, THIS IS NOT THE 1950s ANY LONGER; these aren't your father's or grandfather's Republicans! Today's top Republicans have the same racial views as 1940s communists. They genuinely revile anything smacking of the proposition that white people have a right to exist. Just ask them.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.